Bullet trains in Europe and Japan
Going home for the holidays? What are the most efficient and environmentally friendly travel options?
While petroleum fueled vehicles have become more energy efficient and with 150 new models of electric cars, hybrids, and hybrid plug-in to reach global markets in the next few years - train travel, which traditionally is considered a green transportation, proves to be unpromising when it comes to environmental impact. In addition, many economists state that the costs of building a high-speed rail grid, surpass any future benefits.
Are high-speed trains the way to go?
The Obama administration allocated $8 billion in stimulus funds for high-speed rail infrastructure and trains, and Congress added $1.2 billion. Obviously, the construction, launch, management and operation of the high-speed rails will provide thousands of jobs. However, from an environmental stand point, utilizing a commuter train most often results in higher greenhouse gas emissions than traveling the same distance in other types of transport, such as via buses, cars, and even airplanes.
A research by Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath of the University of California, Berkeley, CA, looked at the life-cycle energy use and emissions generated by 11 different modes of transportation in the US, including car, train, bus or plane. Most current transportation decision-making relies on analysis at the tailpipe, and overlook enablers such as vehicle production, infrastructure provision, and fuel production.
More on transportation-related articles |
The researchers looked at several factors when scaling emissions:
Besides emissions generated by the vehicle, emissions from building and maintaining the vehicles and their infrastructure was factored, the usage of the tracks, roads, and airports over their lifetime, as well as generating the fuel to run them. They also took into consideration the number of passengers each train, plane, bus or car would carry in its lifetime and how many kilometers it would cover. The occupation level (i.e. empty seats) of a vehicle is an important but often disregarded factor. Mass transit appeals as more energy efficient than cars, but the research found that this is not always the case. For example, today’s cars emitted more than any other form of transport except off-peak buses, which had empty seats. In fact, electric trains and cars can contribute to CO2 emissions, if the electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels.
The researchers found that pollution doubled the greenhouse gas emissions of train travel. The emissions generated by cars increased by almost one third when adding manufacturing and infrastructure considerations. In comparison to cars on roads and trains on tracks, air travel requires little infrastructure. As a result, life-cycle emissions are over 10 percent higher than the simplified calculation of only exhaust emissions.
When it comes to trains and railways, more than half of the life cycle emissions come not from the engines' exhausts, but infrastructure development: station building and parking lots, track laying, rail crossings, providing power to stations, parking lots, and escalators.
In addition, future public transportation system set-up will serve only a small proportion of the population and could generate more emissions than it actually cuts.
The research results encourage governments, business leaders, and residents to attempt reducing emissions, increase fuel efficiency and push strong for renewable fuels.
Resource: Environmental Research Letters, DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024008, (in press),
Research report Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath, University of California, Berkeley, CA
Crossroad image from green.sympatico.msn.ca .jpg)
JOB LEADS and TRAINING opportunities
1. The Department of Labor has awarded a total of $55 million to workers seeking green jobs.
Click here for environmental jobs for scientists and engineers
Click here for the other Green industry: landscaping, gardening jobs
2. The State Workforce Agency - Employment and Training Administration
will receive $ 50 million.
The original grant was amended recently.
.jpg)
Send me feedback, Green career tips, training suggestions or job openings and I will share them.
Tags: full cycle energy, full life cycle, plug-in vehicle, incentives, train, high speed, electric bus, airplane emissions, electric vehicles, electric car, EV, electric motor, zero carbon emissions, environmentally conscious, power grid, energy, alternative energy, greenhouse gas emissions, GHG, automobiles, pollution, zero emission, greenhouse, CO2, emissions, utilities, carbon dioxide, carbon footprint, fossil fuels, gasoline, global concern, renewable energy
Comments
The trains are still considerably more emissions efficient, even with the adjustments suggested by the study authors. The difference comes in the form of higher emisssions in concrete manufacture--suggesting better environmental controls in that area are the way to go, rather than not ordering the train.
I don't know where the blithe comment that "future public transporation systems will be used by few people" comes from. High speed rail generally kills off competing air traffic at distances of about 350 miles, and then grows passenger miles in the mid to high single digit rates after that. Light rail similarly have much better passenger loadings than competing bus lines.
Shouldn't the parking lot at a train station count against the car that is parked in it instead of the train which goes past it? And if you count the parking lot at a train station against a trains emissions doesn't that mean that you are double counting the emissions since it would count against the car as well?
This is ridiculous. Even it's true in terms of carbon emissions, the train is still infinitely superior to flying or driving (less than 350mi) for about 1000 other reasons: Comfort, door to door speed, reduction of suburban sprawl, asthetics, and on and on....
This is a great example of the phenomenon that if you analyze something thoroughly enough in an academic setting, you can find that it is harmful. I'm fairly certain there is a study somewhere that says that because apples are often choked upon, it outweighs the potential nutritional benefit of eating apples over other foods. What's missing is an understanding of the bigger picture. For one thing, rail travel and auto/air travel engender very different planning strategies - it would be much more interesting to compare SYSTEMS to their individual elements. Look at the overall impact of, say, living along the MetroNorth corridor in Westchester or Connecticut and commuting into Grand Central every day vs. living in Plano, Tx and driving to and from Las Colinas (and don't forget to factor in driving to lunch round trip).
Why does the study include a 747, that is not used on any routes that compete with trains or cars (except maybe Beijing-Shanghai)?
Why does the study discuss train systems built in the last century (partially running on diesel) when it is supposed to give guidance for future transit planning?
Where in the study does it account for the denser city centers that result from the availability of trains and light rail and that reduce per capita energy consumption compared to car-only suburbs full of single-family homes?
Electric trains using available technology can use CO2 neutral energy sources like solar and wind today.
Neither planes nor cars are anywhere near being switched to CO2 neutral energy distribution. Especially considering the best options bio-diesel/ethanol have come under criticism recently for their competition with food crops.
And an end to sprawl as Edison mentions would further reduce carbon emissions. It is not just the auto that is the problem, it is the world planned for autos that is the problem. Rail connections typically lead to denser communities, which are typically greener communities. People walk a couple blocks to most things, catch transit to work or far away stuff, but a large chunk of life is more local.
Funny how two people can look at the same graph and see different length bars. Having followed the link to this study, the graphs show unmistakably that rail travel is more efficient than car travel, including all factors.
As for air travel, it may be competitive now, but it has no potential to get more efficient. For the forseeable future, we will always need jet fuel. As we switch to other sources of electricity, there is untold potential for rail to get more and more efficient.
Finally, the study talks about "sensitivity to occupancy." A fully loaded bus is the most CO2-efficient mode of transportation in the study, but an empty bus is the least efficient. Our policies should therefore encourage people to park their cars and take the bus.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!